SCOTUS’ Positions on 2nd Amendment vs 4th Amendment Case Law
SCOTUS’ position on 2nd vs 4th Amendment caselaw is important, with the death of Justice Scalia, and the possibility that the next president may appoint as many as 4 U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The relatively newness of interpreting what the 2nd Amendment means, started in 2008 and said it’s an individual right, referencing the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 2008.
Bryan L. Ciyou is a trial and appellate attorney at the Indianapolis law firm of Ciyou & Dixon, P.C.. He earned his BA with distinction and graduated through the honors program, along with his JD, cum laude, at Indiana University in Indianapolis, Indiana.
One of his key practice areas is Firearms Law wherein he represents a wide array of clients, including licensed manufacturers and dealers with criminal or regulatory/compliance matters, gun show promoters and businesses with firearms legal issues, and individuals involved in deadly force encounters. Bryan also consults across the United States with lawyers and those in the industry.
In this CLE class clip, Bryan discusses SCOTUS’ Positions on 2nd Amendment vs 4th Amendment Case Law
The real development of the 2nd Amendment came on the heels of Heller in a similar Chicago ban on handguns in the City of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). In this case, it was decided that the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the states. Now we have the first time the 2nd Amendment has been directly addressed head-on.
The United States v. Cruikshank, 92U.U. 542 (1876), that talks about the 2nd Amendment exists to keep the government from prohibiting individuals from exercising their natural law right to self preservation, including the use of firearms, or the right to use deadly force. It wasn’t until 2008 and 2010 respectively, that you have the U.S. Supreme court chiming in on the 2nd Amendment being an individual right and that applies individual. Can a Chicago and DC ban handguns from individual possession, or is it a collective right reserved for the military.
In the United States v Castleman, 572 U.S. (2014), Fact pattern of physical force, if domestic relationship will trigger federal disqualifier for domestic violence conviction, notwithstanding conviction for crime of battery only. This case essentially says that not only is the fact that federal law prohibits someone convicted of a crime of domestic violence from possessing firearms for life, if the underlying fact pattern shows a domestic relationship of certain types, that person can still be barred for life.
The future of the United States Supreme court could be an historical time in determining the meaning of the 2nd Amendment rights, is it an individual right, or a collective right. With potentially 4 Supreme Court positions available, could this mean a shift in the view of what the 2nd Amendment means.